Ammunition and explosives – Projectiles – Nonlethal or deterrent
Reexamination Certificate
2002-11-14
2004-08-31
Poon, Peter M. (Department: 3643)
Ammunition and explosives
Projectiles
Nonlethal or deterrent
C102S444000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06782828
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to special purpose projectiles and more specifically to novel apparatus and methods for sequential integration of propellant forces onto highly pliant projectiles thus facilitating their safe and efficient discharge from firearms and other launching platforms. By controlling frictional energy losses, the pliant projectiles are prevented from lodging or decelerating in the barrel of the weapon.
The highly specialized projectiles incorporating innovations described in the present invention is directed towards law enforcement and military users and satisfies a pervasive and growing requirement for effective less lethal rounds and for breaching rounds in a variety of tactical law enforcement, military missions and weapon systems.
2. Description of the Related Art
Recent times have seen a rapid increase in the level of interest throughout the law enforcement and military communities in what has been alternatively referred to as nonlethal, less than lethal and currently, less lethal devices. Simultaneously, better methods of gaining entry to secured doors, gates and windows and the like, by various types of breaching rounds are also being sought.
Due to this increased awareness and gradual growth in the actual requirement, a proliferation of less lethal and breaching rounds, particularly for shotguns (which for many security personnel are the weapons of choice) have been developed and offered into these specialty markets. Few if any, less lethal or breaching cartridges for handguns or rifles have been offered that meet current requirements.
Some early efforts in less lethal development involved single wooden batons and rubber balls approximating the size of the shotgun bore were and are still offered in various materials in durometer values mostly in the eighty to ninety Shore “A” range. This degree of “hardness” is three to four times that of the human target body. This hardness value was required to propel the projectile safely from the firearm. Small rubber pellets approximating the size of 00 buckshot, also in the higher durometer range of sixty to ninety Shore “A”, were introduced as crowd control devices with seven to ten pellets per twelve gauge round.
Currently, there is wide interest and guarded usage of the “shot bag” or “bean bag” concept which utilizes conventional small lead shotgun pellets or other dense spherical media contained in a square flexible flat bag which is approximately 1.5 inches on a side and with a weight of approximately 650 grains. When inserted into a conventional shotgun shell casing and fired at 300 ft. per second, the projectile produces over 120 ft/lbs of kinetic energy at impact.
There exists, particularly in law enforcement, universal discontent with the shot bag or bean bag concept and a virtual rejection of the rubber buckshot, wooden baton and rubber ball projectiles. The limited cross-sectional area that rubber buckshot presents to the target body surface in combination with their high Durometer values requires minimum weight and low muzzle velocities to prevent or minimize surface penetration. This results in ineffectual target body impact and, if the intended target surface is covered with heavy clothing, the round is virtually useless.
The rubber balls and wooden batons, if they are provided with sufficient momentum to make them effective, concentrate so much energy unto a relatively small area, that is, the kinetic energy density levels are so high, that users are routinely instructed by manufacturers' product literature to fire onto a surface in front of the target and ricochet the projectiles onto the target body. This technique is highly unpredictable, affects accuracy in already tense situations and is contradictory at best.
Bean bags or shot bags as they are called, whose use has slowly expanded based almost solely on the lack of viable alternatives, have very serious and widely recognized shortcomings. In the highly specialized world of law enforcement, wherein predictable product performance can make the difference between life and death, the difficulties of the shot bag round will eventually contribute to its ultimate demise, particularly with the introduction of any viable alternatives.
In a shot bag, the bag containing the lead (or other metal) shot is stowed in a rolled configuration in the shell casing. Despite continued efforts at product improvement, upon exiting the firearm, deployment of the shot bag into a flat or quasi parabolic configuration from its original rolled stowed configuration is highly unpredictable and rarely occurs, at least not within the first ten to fifteen feet of travel. Often the bag will not unroll until after twenty to twenty five feet of travel.
If the shot bag strikes any human target while still in a rolled configuration, the results can, depending on the location of the strike, often be life threatening, if not lethal. Most altercations in which a less lethal round may be appropriately utilized occur at very short ranges. In fact, standard operation procedures often preclude the use of any munitions, lethal or less lethal, at any range over twenty five to thirty feet.
By definition, any perpetrator that is at least twenty five feet away is not deemed an immediate threat. Less lethal discharges ideally should occur at very close ranges from five to fifteen feet. The shot bag, in order to overcome these apparent contradictions, is offered in a variety of kinetic energy levels which can only exacerbate the confusion already existing at a crime scene.
Equally disconcerting is the inherent lack of accuracy provided by the shot bag round. Upon exiting the muzzle, the bag eventually deploys into what is ideally a kind of parabolic symmetrical “blob” which sometimes can proceed to the target with limited accuracy. More likely, the bag deploys into an asymmetrical shape or is propelled sideways and “kites” or “planes” significantly off the intended target line, often times completely missing the target. Additionally, the shot bag can burst from the significant internal hydrostatic pressures generated at the target impact and, because physical orientation of the bag cannot be controlled or predicted, severe laceration type injuries can occur.
Continued effort to improve the performance of the shot bag have produced some improvements in accuracy. By trailing a long kite-like tail behind the standard shot bag, or by containing the lead pellets in the front portion of a sock-like container and trailing the remaining fabric “tail” as a stabilizer, the performance of a basically flawed product has somewhat improved.
However, close range lethality of these products due to their considerable projectile weight cannot be overcome. In addition, potential users cite a valid concern over use in that rioters and others can collect the spent projectiles and, by using the tail as a sling, effectively “return fire”, endangering the safety of those originally deploying the projectiles.
In the past, attempts to reconcile the requirements for single projectile, less lethal ammunition with specifications regarding limits on levels of kinetic energy and kinetic energy densities delivered to a target body surface from virtually point blank to maximum effective range, required a variety of different rounds, none of which provided adequate target stopping power within acceptable kinetic energy density limits.
In the past, this requirement defined a technical contradiction in that enough energy must be imparted into a pliant projectile by virtue of its mass and velocity (momentum) so that adequate kinetic energy is delivered onto the target body surface at the moment of impact. The upper limit of this kinetic energy on a human target has been defined as approximately sixty five foot pounds. It has further been determined that to minimize or effectively eliminate projectile penetration of the target body upon impact, the kinetic energy density levels should not exceed approximately fifty to sixty foot pounds per square inch, which would requ
Kleinberg Marvin H.
Kleinberg & Lerner ,LLP
Lerner Marshall A.
Parsley David J
Poon Peter M.
LandOfFree
Pliant firearm projectiles does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Pliant firearm projectiles, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Pliant firearm projectiles will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3325135